Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

[hector13]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

I mean… evidence that could have been material to the case wasn’t submitted to the defense. That means his right to a fair trial was infringed upon.

[feelotraveller]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

I mean… evidence that could have been material to the case wasn’t submitted to the defense. That means his right to a fair trial was infringed upon.

Tell that to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/rust-shooting-hannah-gutierrez-reed-verdict (currently in prison for involuntary manslaughter).  Not that she's even poor or black.

[hector13]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

I mean… evidence that could have been material to the case wasn’t submitted to the defense. That means his right to a fair trial was infringed upon.

Tell that to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/rust-shooting-hannah-gutierrez-reed-verdict (currently in prison for involuntary manslaughter).  Not that she's even poor or black.

Crew member Ross Addiego told the jury that the production had been working at “ludicrous speeds” and described Gutierrez-Reed as less professional than other armorers he had worked with. He also said that firearms were left unsecured.

I’m not sure what your point is. Armorer responsible for keeping firearms safe on set is prosecuted for deeming a firearm safe that ended up killing one person and injuring another.

[feelotraveller]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

I mean… evidence that could have been material to the case wasn’t submitted to the defense. That means his right to a fair trial was infringed upon.

Tell that to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/rust-shooting-hannah-gutierrez-reed-verdict (currently in prison for involuntary manslaughter).  Not that she's even poor or black.

Crew member Ross Addiego told the jury that the production had been working at “ludicrous speeds” and described Gutierrez-Reed as less professional than other armorers he had worked with. He also said that firearms were left unsecured.

I’m not sure what your point is. Armorer responsible for keeping firearms safe on set is prosecuted for deeming a firearm safe that ended up killing one person and injuring another.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/12/alec-baldwin-court-case-rust-shooting-trial

Prosecutors have long said evidence shows that Gutierrez-Reed, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in March, was the source of the live round, but the defense said the state had received evidence that suggested otherwise and “buried” it.

This was the evidence that Baldwin's trial was dismissed over.  And yet you want to say if was not an infringement of her right to a fair trial.  Why?

[hector13]

It doesn’t matter if she was responsible for the round being there, that’s why.

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/02/archives/film-guns-on-a-set-can-often-spell-danger.html

For all the bravado that accompanies their on-screen use, guns are indeed taken seriously on film sets. The guidelines for weapon use, established and distributed by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, are specific:

* The prop master or an assistant (or a weapons specialist, if the prop master is not certified in the exotic or automatic weapons to be used) must always be present to oversee the weapons and the actors wielding them.

* All guns must be checked before, and emptied after, each take and must be cleaned daily; guns must be securely stored under the aegis of the prop master when not in use.

* Loaded guns must never be pointed directly at anyone (camera angles can make up for the discrepancy), and protective shielding, like modified body armor, must be worn by anyone nearby when blanks are fired. If a blank is to be fired directly at the camera, those behind it must be protected by bulletproof Plexiglas.

* Nobody other than prop masters or someone under their direct supervision can load a gun or hand it to an actor, who must get detailed instruction in handling before filming.

That is her job. The fact a live round made it onto set and into a fully functional firearm that she should have checked is her fault, regardless of how much Alec Baldwin twatted about with it.

[Rolan7]

"We didn't need to bury the evidence actually" is not a good explanation for burying evidence

[feelotraveller]

I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  Not sure why you don't get the point.  It's a about getting a fair trial.

Can't read your paywalled link, but honestly I don't need to.  Procedural fairness was not followed so it doesn't actually matter (legally) how much she stuffed up.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  Not sure why you don't get the point.  It's a about getting a fair trial.

The legal doctrine in question specifically depends on whether the evidence was "material" to the trial as determined by a judge, so, if it is in fact true that the charges against her had nothing to do with where the bullet came from per se (I don't know the exact charges myself), then it simply doesn't impact her rights.

[hector13]

I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  Not sure why you don't get the point.  It's a about getting a fair trial.

Can't read your paywalled link, but honestly I don't need to.  Procedural fairness was not followed so it doesn't actually matter (legally) how much she stuffed up.

Maybe if you posted the second link in the first place I’d have actually known what you were chatting about. There’s no mention in the first one about the prosecution hiding evidence.

[feelotraveller]

@MaxiumSpin
Fair enough.  I'm not a lawyer but the prosecution did rely on the flawed/disputed fact as part of their prosecution.

Live rounds of ammunition that Gutierrez-Reed allegedly brought from home were found on set, the prosecution said during the trial.

“We believe that it was the negligent acts and failures of the defendant, Ms Gutierrez, that resulted in both the acts that contributed to Ms Hutchins’ death and to the live rounds being brought on to the set,” prosecutor Jason Lewis said in his opening statement.

And it is my memory (although that could be flawed and I don't have a source handy) that the judge in pronouncing the verdict found her culpable of bringing live ammunition onto the set.  So it certainly seems that it was relied upon in the trial.  Not sure what the legal definition of 'material' is though but apparently it was in Baldwin's case.

@hector13
I assumed that you knew about that when replying to EuchreJack.

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

[hector13]

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me

Baldwin’s defense is that it wasn’t his fault.

The gun was said to have passed through at least two pairs of hands before getting to his (the armorer and assistant director, both of whom have been sentenced for their part) and both of those people, as per the quoted part of the NYT article I linked (also set out on Wikipedia) were responsible for checking the gun was safe to use.

Where the rounds came from only matter to him so he can blame another person, Seth Kenney, to deflect blame from him apparently messing about with a gun.

It doesn’t matter in the armorer’s case because it is her responsibility to make sure guns are safe prior to (and after) each use on set. The bullets could have fallen from the sky for all it matters to that.

[feelotraveller]

Pray tell why the prosecution made such a big thing of accusing her of bringing the ammunition onto the set in her trial then?

The decision regarding Baldwin didn't get to his 'fault'.  The case was dismissed because the prosecution failed to proceed properly.

[hector13]

Circumstantial evidence isn’t the problem that TV shows make it out to be. It was one board in the ship they were building that shows she was pretty pants at her job, and because she was pants at her job, someone was killed. Just because she may not have been responsible for the live round on the set doesn’t change that; the ship doesn’t fall apart from the removal of that particular board.

Baldwin’s entire defense is that it wasn’t his fault. He didn’t pull the trigger, he wasn’t responsible for checking that the gun didn’t have a live round in it, he didn’t put the live round in the gun, he wasn’t responsible for a live round being on the set. The evidence that was hidden could have been material in him proving that.

Edit:

The decision regarding Baldwin didn't get to his 'fault'.  The case was dismissed because the prosecution failed to proceed properly.

… because it was relevant to his defense. The armorer’s defense team proving she didn’t bring the live rounds on set doesn’t prove that she didn’t give the assistant director a gun with a live round in it that ended up killing someone.

Edit 2: anyway, the live rounds were handed in as evidence the day the armored was sentenced.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/alec-baldwin-rust-trial-how-prosecution-fell-apart-key-moments-rcna161671

… Baldwin’s lead attorney, asked Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office crime scene technician Marissa Poppell whether a “good Samaritan” had come to authorities with ammunition earlier this year.

Poppell confirmed under oath that the sheriff’s office was given Colt .45 rounds by Troy Teske, a former police officer and friend of Thell Reed, the stepfather of “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. In fact, according to that testimony, Teske dropped off the rounds on the same day Gutierrez-Reed was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.

[lemon10]

Conversely, look at how the system works for rich famous white people: https://people.com/why-alec-baldwin-prosecutor-shockingly-quit-case-before-dismissal-8677658

Now ask yourself, "How would this have gone down if the defendant was anyone else?"

I mean… evidence that could have been material to the case wasn’t submitted to the defense. That means his right to a fair trial was infringed upon.

I mean, he isn't entirely wrong?

In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain

For people that aren't rich if the prosecutor decides to bury evidence you just get screwed.
Either you plead guilty before the trial, or if you decide to fight you get a crappy massively overworked government lawyer. *Maybe* you get your own lawyer and pay them, but even then it can be a crapshoot.

The judge dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin on Friday, hours after his lawyers alleged police and prosecutors hid evidence

Proper rich people get legal teams of skilled lawyers that will diligently fight for them. If Baldwin wasn't rich he wouldn't have had a team of lawyers, and they never would have found the buried evidence.

Him being famous and white doesn't really matter to the legal system these days, being rich is the real superpower.